One could make the argument that the majority of the time a running back or wide receiver lowers their head and there is helmet to helmet contact its because the defender is already leading with his helmet.

A running back isn't a defenseless receiver. When Steven Ridley got ****** up by Bernard Pollard in the playoffs this year, it was perfectly okay. Not a penalty. It was helmet to helmet contact, but it's not a penalty.

A running back isn't a defenseless receiver. When Steven Ridley got ****** up by Bernard Pollard in the playoffs this year, it was perfectly okay. Not a penalty. It was helmet to helmet contact, but it's not a penalty.

Did Pollard not use his helmet on that play?

Just because it isn't called (which most of the time it is) doesn't mean it isn't against the rules.

Per NFL rules, the hit was not a penalty. Pollard was going for a tackle when Ridley lowered his head to brace for impact. The helmet-to-helmet contact was incidental, drawing no flag because the NFL rules do not protect running backs the same way they protect quarterbacks and receivers.

A running back isn't a defenseless receiver. When Steven Ridley got ****** up by Bernard Pollard in the playoffs this year, it was perfectly okay. Not a penalty. It was helmet to helmet contact, but it's not a penalty.

Did Pollard not use his helmet on that play?

No, Pollard was not using his helmet. Maybe the regular speed version confused you, but if you watch the slowed down replay, it is insanely obvious that Ridley was the one who led with his head and hit Pollard on his helmet. I know people like to say Pollard layed a hard hit, but in truth Ridley basically knocked himself out. To be honest, that particular play is a textbook case of why the NFL would want to implement this rule.

SP's point is that they cannot lead with their head, which Pollard obviously did. So did Ridley. It wasn't illegal, just unfortunate. This is an absurd rule and I cannot believe anyone could defend it.

SP's point is that they cannot lead with their head, which Pollard obviously did. So did Ridley. It wasn't illegal, just unfortunate. This is an absurd rule and I cannot believe anyone could defend it.

Pollard wasn't leading with his helmet. He had barely even started to lunge at Ridley before contact was made.

SP's point is that they cannot lead with their head, which Pollard obviously did. So did Ridley. It wasn't illegal, just unfortunate. This is an absurd rule and I cannot believe anyone could defend it.

Exactly. Pollard was leading with his helmet and hit Ridley with it. Forenci is saying defensive players can't use their helmets at all and offensive players can, so it's fair to change the rule, but defensive players can use their helmet, as shown in the Ridley hit. It doesn't matter if it is incidental, he was still allowed to use his helmet.

Exactly. Pollard was leading with his helmet and hit Ridley with it. Forenci is saying defensive players can't use their helmets at all and offensive players can, so it's fair to change the rule, but defensive players can use their helmet, as shown in the Ridley hit. It doesn't matter if it is incidental, he was still allowed to use his helmet.

You're completely wrong. I'm sorry. I'm not saying defensive players don't get away with using their helmets on hits. They do. Just like offensive linemen get away with holding and defensive backs get away with pass interference. That's not the point. The point is, defensive backs ARE NOT ALLOWED TO, and as such they will get flagged if the ref sees it or believes it's an illegal hit.

Offensive players that lower their head and use it to punish defenders for trying to tackle them should not be allowed either.

Exactly. Pollard was leading with his helmet and hit Ridley with it. Forenci is saying defensive players can't use their helmets at all and offensive players can, so it's fair to change the rule, but defensive players can use their helmet, as shown in the Ridley hit. It doesn't matter if it is incidental, he was still allowed to use his helmet.

I see Pollard lunging forward, a standard tackling technique that it no way implies the helmet is being used to intentionally bring down the carrier. I see no indication that Pollard is using his helmet as a weapon. You can lunge forward and utilize the shoulder easily.

I see Ridley also lunging forward, but unquestionably lowering his helmet in an intentional attempt to use it prevent any tackle. I do see Ridley using his helmet as a weapon.

From what I understand most of this argument doesn't even apply to the rule. Ridley nor Pollard would be flagged. This new rule is supposed to only be when a RB, IN THE OPEN FIELD uses his helmet AND ONLY THE CROWN OF HIS HELMET as a means to punish the defender. The RB, in the open field uses no other technique to avoid or break the tackle other than to inflict a helmet to the defender.

From what I understand most of this argument doesn't even apply to the rule. Ridley nor Pollard would be flagged. This new rule is supposed to only be when a RB, IN THE OPEN FIELD uses his helmet AND ONLY THE CROWN OF HIS HELMET as a means to punish the defender. The RB, in the open field uses no other technique to avoid or break the tackle other than to inflict a helmet to the defender.

That wasn't the crown of his helmet? Sure seems like it was to me. Also, the rule isn't "open field", rather outside the tackle box, which Ridley was.

And actually, SP's complaint is moot. Lost in all of this, this rule subjects the defender to the exact same restrictions, as if they weren't already.